Some publishers like EA would be interested however others like Activision couldn't give two s**ts what we think.

[citation needed]. Not to mention that the amount of piracy deterred is a useless metric, as it's ultimately the change in number of sales that's of relevance to a developer/publisher.
[citation needed]
Such promises are absolutely meaningless unless a patch for Steam/Steam games is already written and being held in escrow by a third party that is shielded from both the current and future management of Steam as well as any current and future creditors.

Stardock is God.

Very well, I'll put it in plain, blunt language: you're talking out of your ass. There currently simply isn't enough data to draw any general conclusions. The effects of piracy and DRM on the economics of IP is a bit of a pet interest of mine so I try to keep an eye out for any data or studies regarding the issue, and so far there's an incredible dearth of information that could be considered in any way to be conclusive. Conclusions that various people do try to draw ultimately amount to nothing more than "gut feeling" levels of speculation, and are based on data sets so limited that to call the resulting conclusions myopic would be unbelievably generous. The most that can currently be done is speculate about how people may act in response to various DRM schemes. Any attempt to state a causal effect between DRM and how people do act is to demonstrate either ignorance of what data is actually available, or full on intellectual dishonesty. Now, I welcome you to prove me wrong as show that there actually is sufficient data available to actually draw some conclusions, but I'm not going to be holding my breath.
So was there a control co-release of a World of Goo version that did contain DRM? Or one of Spore that didn't? Without a control how do you intend to draw any conclusions, especially when dealing with many complex factors (DRM, price, distribution methods, target demographic, marketing, product quality, etc), all of which are going to have an effect on both sales and piracy. Without having a control with which to compare the results to the only way to draw conclusions is a statistical analysis of a data set large enough to normalize out all factors except the one or two of interest, and such a study simply has not been done to date.
I don't know. Neither do you. That's the point. In an incredibly simplified "Buy/don't buy" model for a single product with no alternatives, something like a serial is probably not going to have much of an effect, but no real-world case is that simple. With a wide variety of products available and a variety of distribution methods as well, lots of little factors can start to creep into a buyer's subconscious evaluation of opportunity cost for a purchase, and without an actual large data set to look at it's simply not possible to draw any conclusions.
So to put it all more concisely: [citation needed]

Yep, both Steam and GG are still playing 'catch up' when it comes to reporting DRM on their game library. However, again, HoI 3 does NOT use DRM if purchased from Paradox or from a retail store. Maybe the Impulse version uses Goo, I'm not sure about that.

Calling all DRM bad is stupid. DRM is not "good" or "bad", it is just effective or not effective. If DRM actually accomplished its intended task (i.e. preventing illegal copies) without restricting the rights of legitimate consumers, then none of us would ever have a problem with it. Unfortunately, no DRM scheme has actually done this yet, they either do nothing to prevent illegal copies or restrict legitimate consumers in unreasonable ways or (more often than not) do both, making DRM a waste of time and a source of unnecessary frustration. Stardock's Goo is an initial attempt to produce an effective DRM scheme. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen, but it is certainly not a "betrayal" of the principles Stardock has portrayed in the past, nor is it "bad" DRM, it is just DRM.

The problem, though, is that the only thing DRM can do is restrict what legitimate customers can do with the game they bought. Additionally, the same processes and actions are often behind the making of illegal copies and perfectly legitimate customer actions. For example, burning a backup copy and burning copies for your 20 friends. As DRM is incapable of dealing with intent and is only capable of preventing certain processes trying to find DRM that stops illicit copies while not interfering with legitimate uses is like trying to find water that isn't wet.

I disagree, just because no one has actually created DRM scheme that does everything we and the publishers would like it to do doesn't mean that it is impossible to do it, Goo proves that. With DRM like Goo, legitimate use like creating a backup copy is not prevented at all. The only thing that is prevented is giving a backup copy to 20 of your friends, since with Goo, the original copy and all backups are tied to the original owner. Additionally, Goo allows an original owner to transfer a license to a new owner (i.e. first sale rights), which is something that you have never been able to do with any previous DRM scheme. About the only thing that Goo does that some people might not like is the initial activation of the game. But lets face it, that is a minor inconvenience at most and really no more inconvenient than having to run a game with the disk in the drive or entering a license key upon installation, which we have had no complaints about for decades now.

From what I've read of Goo it seems that resales have to go through Impulse, thus restricting buyers from reselling it on their own and on their own terms. So there's a restriction on how ownership may be transferred, in addition to the activation requirement you already mentioned (which I unfortunately couldn't find much technical information on, so any additional information you could provide here would be appreciated). Note that both of these are specifically restrictions on how legitimate customers can use the software they bought. I'd also be curious to know how, after the initial activation, Goo manages to distinguish between the original buyer re-installing the game on a new machine, and the buyer's friend Bobby installing the game on his machine (or is that "one time activation" actually an "every time you install it" activation?).
Additionally, I'd like to know what games, if any, Goo has been implemented in (information seems pretty scarce on all aspects of it), as the implementation is where things really matter for any DRM system. I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that any game released with Goo has a cracked version available via torrent, and this goes to the heart of my argument about just who DRM actually affects. With the ubiquity of broadband and decentralized file transfer systems all that's required is a single cracked copy, and DRM schemes being cracked is inevitable. This is because since the customer has to be able to access the content they have everything that's needed to crack the DRM; all that can be done is slow down this process by adding layers of obfuscation through more complicated and sensitive verification methods, but this also increase the chance of false positives and provides extra hurdles for customers to jump through. The end result is that once the initial cracked copy is out there DRM has absolutely no effect on those looking to pirate the game, and thus the only people it can affect are legitimate customers.
This is not some challenge that DRM manufacturers simply having yet been able to find a way around, it is an intrinsic and insurmountable issue with what DRM is. This is because DRM is an encryption system in which the attacker and the authorized user are the same person. Thus it's no surprise when time after time the system fails miserably.

Maybe your kidding but it makes me think.
Mooo! says the gamer. Good gamer says Stardock.

I have a question for Faithful, Narakir, and DarrkPhoenix (Note I'm singling them out because they seem to have the strongest convictions against DRM)...
Is there any form of DRM that you would find acceptable? And if so, what? If it hasn't been developed yet, what would it be, and how would it go about meeting the requirements you've set.
While you're thinking about this, there's a couple of things you should keep in mind.
1) It has to be something that both the consumer and publishers would agree to.
2) There is a difference between licensing and purchasing something. (I have a feeling this is going to open a whole can of worms, but that should be a different discussion.)
3) What is it that current DRM attempts to do, and what is it that your version would attempt to do?
I'm actually curious if you have a solution in mind, other than spouting "it's evil, burn it!"

Thats rather flawed reasoning, implying the success of one thing by the failure of its opposite with, as darrkphoenix said, no control data as a basis of solid comparison.
To use an analogy, I had the worst week of my entire life last week, it was like all the shitty luck and bad karma focussed on me for that time. I didn't donate to orphans funds or eat an apple the week before, could they be responsible? Oh noes! Maybe I should donate apples to orphans (or orphans to apples)
I could continue with more examples but they tend to veer towards religion and become rather hostile towards the subject...
Gamepolitics has a story about a DRM company CEO actually asking gamers what they want, might be worth reading and acting on
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/08/06/drm-company-ceo-asks-gamer-feedback

Acceptable? No. Tolerable? To various degrees. To me, every form of DRM decreases the value of the product being sold; the extent to which it decreases the value depends on the specifics of the DRM. Needless to say, if the DRM drops the value below the asking price I don't buy the product. For my preferences, the two main things I'm opposed to are systems that could result in me no longer being able to play the game I bought (such as any remote activation), and systems that could damage my computer (e.g. Starforce). I'm willing to put up with disc checks, right up until they start giving false positives (I've had this happen with a couple of games, but nothing a No-CD crack couldn't deal with). With remote authentication systems I regard any game with one of those attached as a rental and I'm typically not willing to pay over $20 for such a title (finally ended up buying Mass Effect a few months back when it dipped under that price point). So again, to summarize, DRM removes value from products its attached to, and thus while I still may be willing to buy the product the price I'm willing to pay is less than I'd be willing to pay if the DRM wasn't there.
As I was discussing with cogadh, I'm of the opinion that DRM is intrinsically flawed, and the only purpose it can accomplish is restricting what legitimate customers can do with the products they have bought. Thus unless you're of the mind the customers being able to freely use what they bought is a problem, there is nothing that DRM can act as solution for.

I find that very offensive.
=P